C C Blackmore1, W J Smith. 1. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, 27599-7510, USA. craige.rad@mhs.unc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Increasing pressure to curb health care costs has led to considerable interest in economic analyses, including both cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Numerous economic analyses of radiological procedures have appeared in both the radiology and non-radiology literature. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of economic analyses of radiological procedures published in the non-radiology medical literature during the years 1990 1995. METHODS: Original investigations from the medical (non-radiological) literature that include economic analyses of radiological interventions were identified from a computerized literature search. Each economic analysis article was evaluated by two independent reviewers for adherence to ten methodological criteria. The criteria were derived from review of the medical and radiological economic analysis methodology literature and consisted of the following: (1) Comparative options stated; (2) perspective of analysis defined; (3) outcome measure identified; (4) cost data included; (5) source of cost data stated; (6) long term costs included; (7) discounting employed; (8) summary measure provided; (9) incremental computation method used; and (10) sensitivity analysis performed. The results were compared to a previous study that evaluated the radiological literature. RESULTS: Of the 56 articles in the medical literature that included economic analyses of radiological procedures, only eight (14%) conformed to all ten methodological criteria. The cost data (98%) and comparative options (89%) criteria exhibited high compliance, while the perspective of analysis (25%) and discounting (32%) criteria had relatively low compliance. Agreement between the reviewers was excellent (kappa = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Published economic analyses of radiology procedures usually do not meet accepted methodological standards.
OBJECTIVE: Increasing pressure to curb health care costs has led to considerable interest in economic analyses, including both cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Numerous economic analyses of radiological procedures have appeared in both the radiology and non-radiology literature. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of economic analyses of radiological procedures published in the non-radiology medical literature during the years 1990 1995. METHODS: Original investigations from the medical (non-radiological) literature that include economic analyses of radiological interventions were identified from a computerized literature search. Each economic analysis article was evaluated by two independent reviewers for adherence to ten methodological criteria. The criteria were derived from review of the medical and radiological economic analysis methodology literature and consisted of the following: (1) Comparative options stated; (2) perspective of analysis defined; (3) outcome measure identified; (4) cost data included; (5) source of cost data stated; (6) long term costs included; (7) discounting employed; (8) summary measure provided; (9) incremental computation method used; and (10) sensitivity analysis performed. The results were compared to a previous study that evaluated the radiological literature. RESULTS: Of the 56 articles in the medical literature that included economic analyses of radiological procedures, only eight (14%) conformed to all ten methodological criteria. The cost data (98%) and comparative options (89%) criteria exhibited high compliance, while the perspective of analysis (25%) and discounting (32%) criteria had relatively low compliance. Agreement between the reviewers was excellent (kappa = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Published economic analyses of radiology procedures usually do not meet accepted methodological standards.